Injunctive orders against Global Hydrocarbons, directors still stand – First Bank

First Bank of Nigeria has stated that the injunctive orders granted to it by Justice Deinde Dipeolu of the Federal High Court, Lagos, remain valid, even though the court has set aside a Mareva injunction freezing the assets of Global Hydrocarbons, and those of its directors up to the sum of $225.8 million.

The lender stated in a statement on Wednesday that the court ruled that the suit it filed against the energy firm before Justice Dipeolu did not amount to an abuse of court process as Global Hydrocarbons claimed.

On 13 January 2025, Nduka Obaigbena (the owner of Global Hydrocarbons and its directors asked the court to dismiss the suit “for being in gross abuse of the process of this Honourable Court.”

Justice Dipeolu, in his ruling on Wednesday, declared that “I have earlier on held that, although the Interim Orders made by this Court on the 30th of December, 2024 are in relation to the subsequent facilities agreement between the 1st Plaintiff and 1st Defendant and it does not extend to the receivables in the agreement of 29th of May, 2021, also, the present suit on the face of it if placed side by side with FHC/L/CS/1953/2024 is not an abuse of process for the reasons given above.”

First Bank noted that although Global Hydrocarbons claimed that the financial institution suppressed and/or concealed the preservative orders issued by Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa, the court noted that the bank disclosed the existence of the preservative orders of Justice Allagoa but the order was not attached to the affidavit.

“It is important to stress that the injunctive orders made by Dipeolu J. on 30th December 2024 were eight in number out of which only two (2) were Mareva Orders,” First Bank stated.

“The other injunctive orders namely, Orders 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 were not discharged or set aside, and remain valid and subsisting.”

First Bank insisted that Global Hydrocarbons and its directors remain forbidden from dealing with and/or dissipating monies in their accounts and assets linked to the subject matter of the case.

It noted that the matter has been adjourned to 19 February to enable all defendants to respond to the substantive suit before a hearing date is given by the Judge.

On Wednesday, Global Hydrocarbons said its directors, who are among the defendants in the case, have initiated legal proceedings against First Bank demanding $1 billion each in damages for defamation and the wrongful freezing of their accounts.

The company disclosed that it is also launching a case in the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee against First Bank lawyers, Babajide Koku (SAN) and Victor Ogude (SAN) for “unprofessional conduct.”

BELOW IS THE FULL STATEMENT BY FIRST BANK

GHL and its Directors still under the shackles of Court Injunctions

Contrary to reports circulating in the media in the proceedings of 29th January 2025 in the case between FBN & ANOR v. GHL & 15 ORS, the Court ruled that the suit filed by FBN before Dipeolu J, did not amount to an abuse of court process as the cause of action and the parties are different from the cause of action and parties in the proceedings that were before Allagoa J.

For the above reason, the court was of the view that the suit filed by FBN was properly constituted and dismissed the prayers of the 1st – 5th Defendants urging the court to strike out/dismiss the suit for being an abuse of court process.

With respect to GHL’s contention that FBN suppressed and/or concealed the preservative orders made by Allagoa J., the court also held that FBN disclosed the existence of the preservative orders of Allagoa J. in paragraph 61 of their Affidavit save that the court order was not attached.

On the Mareva order, the Court was of the view that even though First Bank disclosed the existence of the preservative orders obtained from Allagoa J, he would nonetheless discharge the Mareva order because of the orders of Allagoa J.

It is important to stress that the injunctive orders made by Dipeolu J. on 30th December 2024 were 8 in number out of which only two (2) were Mareva Orders.

The other injunctive orders namely, Orders 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 were not discharged or set aside, and remain valid and subsisting. The orders are as follows:

6. AN ORDER OF INTERIM INJUNCTION restraining the 1st – 4th Defendants, agents, servants, officers, privies, subsidiaries, sister companies or any other person natural or artificial howsoever called under the control of the 1st – 4th Defendants from transferring or otherwise dealing with any and all of the monies standing to the credit of the 1st – 4th Defendants in any account whatsoever maintained by the 1st – 4th Defendants with any of the aforementioned Banks wherever situate up to the amount of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s claim of the total sum of US$225,802,379.69 (Two Hundred and Twenty-Five Million Eight Hundred and Two Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy-Nine Dollars and Sixty-Nine Cents) being the indebtedness on the 1st Defendant’s account with the 1st Plaintiff/Applicant as of 30th September 2024 in respect of the loan facilities granted to the 1st Defendant by the 1st Plaintiff/Applicant, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction.

7. AN ORDER mandating all the Commercial Banks in Nigeria to wit: GUARANTY TRUST BANK LIMITED, ACCESS BANK PLC, CITIBANK NIGERIA LIMITED, CARBON BANK, ECOBANK NIGERIA PLC, FIDELITY BANK PLC, FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA LIMITED, FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK PLC, FLUTTER WAVE, GLOBUS BANK, HERITAGE BANK LIMITED, JAIZ BANK, KEYSTONE BANK LIMITED, OPAY DIGITAL SERVICES LIMITED, PALMPAY LIMITED, PAYSTACK PAYMENTS LIMITED, PIGGYVEST, MOMO PAYMENT SERVICES LIMITED, POLARIS BANK LIMITED, PROVIDUS BANK, STANBIC IBTC BANK NIGERIA LIMITED, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, STERLING BANK PLC, SUNTRUST BANK LIMITED, UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC, UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC, UNITY BANK PLC, WEMA BANK PLC, ZENITH BANK PLC AND ALL OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS OPERATING IN NIGERIA to file and serve on the Plaintiffs/Applicant Solicitors within seven(7) days of serving this Court Order on them, an Affidavit disclosing the sum standing to the 1st – 4th Defendants’ credit with a duly certified Statement of Accounts of the 1st – 4th Defendants/Respondents in their respective custody from the date of its opening till the date this Order is served on the Bank(s).

8. AN ORDER mandating the 8th – 13th Defendants to file and serve on the Plaintiffs/Applicants a statement disclosing the quantum of products lifted from the 8th Defendant or OML 120 since the commencement of production in OML 120.

9. AN ORDER of interim injunction restraining the 8th to 16th Defendants and any other third parties from dealing with any assets and receivables related or connected with OML 120 without depositing the proceeds thereof to the 1st Defendant’s account in the 1st Plaintiff Bank, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction.

10. AN ORDER of interim injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants whether by themselves, members, shareholders, agents, servants, proxies, allies, from transferring and/or dissipating, diminishing or dealing with any interest in the 1st Defendant’s assets including but not limited to crude stock, insurance policies, all forms of stock of shares, all forms of receivables and contracts which have been pledged as securities for the loan facilities granted by the 1st Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction.

11. AN ORDER of interim injunction restraining the 2nd – 4th Defendants being directors of the 1St Defendant, whether by themselves, agents, servants, proxies, allies, from transferring and/or dissipating any interest in their assets wherever located in Nigeria, movable or immovable, pending the determination of the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction.

For the avoidance of doubt, the 1st – 4th Defendants (GHL and its directors) are still restrained from dealing with and/or dissipating monies in their respective accounts and assets connected to the subject matter of the suit.

It is also pertinent to refute the false insinuation that punitive costs were awarded against FBN.

The matter has been further adjourned to 19th February 2025 to enable all Defendants respond to the substantive suit before a hearing date is given by the Judge.